Antecedent-Based Interventions Flashcards

A behavior analyst implements a fixed-time (FT) noncontingent escape schedule to reduce escape-motivated self-injurious behavior (SIB) during academic tasks. After initial suppression, SIB returns to near-baseline levels within three weeks. Which modification to the NCR procedure would MOST directly target the hypothesized mechanism driving this resurgence?

Answer: Switch to a variable-time (VT) schedule of equal mean duration to eliminate predictability of escape delivery

With an FT schedule, the client can effectively 'wait out' the inter-break intervals because the next break is temporally predictable. This preserves a high establishing operation (EO) for escape throughout most of each interval, allowing SIB to re-emerge. A variable-time (VT) schedule of equal mean duration removes this predictability, distributing the abolishing operation effect more evenly across the session and preventing the client from timing requests around a known schedule.

A practitioner has been using a high-probability (high-p) request sequence for six weeks. The low-p target request compliance has improved significantly, but the high-p requests themselves have recently begun evoking non-compliance and mild aggression. Which explanation BEST accounts for this unexpected deterioration of the high-p requests?

Answer: Through repeated pairing, the high-p requests have acquired conditioned aversive properties because they consistently precede the effortful low-p demand

This phenomenon — sometimes called a 'contrast effect' or conditioned aversiveness — occurs when the high-p requests serve as a reliable temporal signal that an effortful or aversive low-p demand is imminent. Through Pavlovian conditioning, the high-p requests themselves acquire aversive properties, eroding behavioral momentum. This is a documented limitation of high-p sequences in extended implementation, and may require restructuring the sequence or increasing the reinforcer magnitude and delay after the low-p request.

A student engages in aggression exclusively during unstructured transitions between activities. A functional analysis indicates escape from uncertainty as the maintaining variable. The behavior analyst recommends activity schedule priming — showing the student a photograph schedule of upcoming activities five minutes before each transition. Which behavioral mechanism PRIMARILY accounts for the effectiveness of this antecedent strategy?

Answer: Pre-exposure to the upcoming activity sequence reduces uncertainty, functioning as an abolishing operation on the EO for escape-motivated aggression

Transitions are aversive partly because unpredictability functions as an establishing operation (EO) that increases the value of escape. By pre-exposing the student to the upcoming activity sequence, priming reduces novelty and uncertainty — serving as an abolishing operation (AO) that diminishes the motivating value of escape and therefore the frequency of escape-motivated aggression. This is distinct from reinforcement-based explanations; the mechanism is MO manipulation, not contingency-based.

According to Colvin and colleagues' seven-step precorrection model, which of the following scenarios represents the MOST complete and technically correct implementation of a precorrection procedure?

Answer: Before entering the cafeteria — a context with a high error rate — a teacher reviews expected behaviors with the student, conducts a brief behavioral rehearsal, then immediately delivers a preferred reinforcer following correct practice

Colvin et al.'s precorrection model requires: (1) identifying the predictable context and expected behavior, (2) modifying the context if necessary, (3) conducting a behavioral rehearsal of the expected behavior before entering the context, and (4) providing a strong reinforcer immediately following the rehearsal. Option D is the only scenario that includes both behavioral rehearsal and immediate reinforcement — the two elements most commonly omitted and most critical to the model. Option A is reactive (postcorrection), Option B lacks rehearsal and individualized delivery, and Option C is a setting/stimulus modification without rehearsal.

A child engages in property destruction exclusively when Staff Member A is present, but never when Staff Member B is present. A functional analysis confirms the behavior is attention-maintained. The behavior analyst hypothesizes that Staff Member A has become an S-delta for attention, while Staff Member B functions as an SD. Which antecedent-based strategy would MOST directly and efficiently remediate this stimulus control problem?

Answer: Have Staff A adopt the same high-density, noncontingent attention delivery pattern currently used by Staff B, redistributing the stimulus control by making Staff A an SD for attention availability

The core problem is that Staff A signals (via S-delta properties) that attention is not available, thereby establishing a strong EO that motivates property destruction. The most direct fix is to transfer stimulus control: by having Staff A deliver attention on the same dense, noncontingent schedule as Staff B, Staff A transitions from S-delta to SD, abolishing the EO for problem behavior in that context. Option A uses fading but is indirect and requires Staff B as a prop. Option B avoids the issue rather than solving it. Option C addresses consequences rather than the antecedent stimulus control problem.

A behavior analyst must choose between interspersal training (IT) and a high-probability request sequence (high-p) for a student whose escape-maintained non-compliance peaks during long academic work sessions. Which of the following statements BEST captures the mechanistic distinction between these two antecedent strategies that should guide this clinical decision?

Answer: High-p sequences generate behavioral momentum through a burst of rapid, dense reinforcement immediately preceding the low-p request; interspersal training reduces average task aversiveness throughout the session by mixing easy items in, attenuating the cumulative EO for escape over time

The key mechanistic distinction: high-p sequences work by building rapid behavioral momentum immediately before a low-p demand — the dense, quick reinforcement history across the short sequence lowers the EO for escape at that specific moment. Interspersal training works over a longer horizon, reducing the cumulative aversiveness of a task session by embedding easy (less effortful, higher reinforcement density) items throughout, which lowers the average EO for escape across the whole session. For extended academic sessions where escape motivation builds over time, interspersal training may be more appropriate than a high-p sequence that only affects the moment of a single demand.